On 12/20/10 9:49 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Pushing gigabytes through it is plausible for most of these uses.
OK. So we're talking multiple seconds even with a C hash
implementation, right? I'm looking at 5 seconds per gigabyte here for
the command-line utility I see.
I guess at that point
On 12/21/2010 11:58 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Boris Zbarskybzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 12/20/10 7:42 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Has a hash functions API been considered, so browsers can expose, for
example, a native SHA-1 implementation? Doing this in JS is
On Wed, Dec 22, 2010 at 4:39 PM, Charles Pritchard ch...@visc.us wrote:
It'd be nice to see an SHA1 JS test case setup for performance testing using
recent APIs like ArrayBuffer.
These kinds of self-contained functions are low hanging fruit for compiler
optimization.
use strict, Typed Arrays
I would love even a painfully slow implementation provided by the
browser. I have encountered lots of cases where being able to talk a
protocol requires computing a sha1 or an md5 hash. Speed has never
been the problem for me, but external javascript library dependencies
are painful to maintain.
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
On 12/20/10 7:42 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Has a hash functions API been considered, so browsers can expose, for
example, a native SHA-1 implementation? Doing this in JS is possible,
but painfully slow, even with current
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. jackalm...@gmail.com wrote:
Notice that all three of the OP's use-cases were based on checksumming
files. I don't know how reading in a Blob and then hashing it would
compare to just hashing an equivalent string, but I suspect it would
have a
On 12/20/10 7:42 PM, Glenn Maynard wrote:
Has a hash functions API been considered, so browsers can expose, for
example, a native SHA-1 implementation? Doing this in JS is possible,
but painfully slow, even with current JS implementations.
Before we go further into this, can we quantify
On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Boris Zbarsky bzbar...@mit.edu wrote:
Or if I modify it to only calculate one hash, but have that be the hash of a
3,840,000 character string, I get times around 400ms.
Running a command-line shasum utility on the same 3,840,000 characters (as
ASCII in a file,
